April 10, 2010

John Derbyshire gave a ten minute presentation to Black Law Students Association at the U. of Pennsylvania on "Should the government play a role in eliminating racial disparities in education and employment?" You can read it here.

My considered judgment is that we will pay the Slavery Tax forever, and that we can, more or less, afford it. What we can't afford is expanding disparate impact and other forms of racial preference to immigrant ethnic groups.

A case can be made that "affirmative action for all" would make since at elite colleges and universities (outside the hard sciences, which are another matter). This is the pool from which tomorrow's leaders of our nation will be chosen, and there is something to be said, in a representative democracy, for having in this pool reflect the ethnic and geographical diversity of the country as a whole. As you point out, there are enough talented individuals in every group to satisfy the top five or six institutions, and that should do the trick in terms of a big enough pool In fact Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and perhaps Duke and Washington University, would be enough.

First, most Whites in the middle and working class see a decline in their incomes, feel no guilt or shame associated with Slavery, and are now outside the SWPL status climb.

Second, a declining economy run by government and with super-cronyism, means a bitter spoils battle. Far more likely is the idea that a "living Constitution" or indeed, "the Constitution does not matter" attitude of Liberals and Dems gets thrown back by a coalition of White voters wanting the goodies themselves.

Finally, can see that a Mexican walking across the border is instantly eligible for all sorts of preferences, and indeed other non-Whites such as Asians (Goodwin Liu coming to mind) want this preferential treatment as well.

The argument is made explicitly that Whites must withdraw from jobs, positions of influence, politics, and the like so others can have more, as a matter of "social justice and peace." Van Jones, Obama's Diversity Czar, Liu, and others such as Sotomayor have made this argument boldly and without hesitation.

That is an issue without compromise: one side must destroy the other.

Look at Jessie James. Had his scandal happened ten years ago he would have been toast. He's now ... a mere minor tabloid fodder. He will probably get another reality show any week.

Derb's talk was superb for clarity and honesty. Anyone looking at these comments will recognize that his basic thesis is presented in 'The Bell Curve' as well.

Possibly less well known is that Cavalli-Sforza said in his 'History and Geography of Human Genes' that all of humanity can be divided into two major groups: Sub-Saharan Africans on the one hand and everyone else on the other.

Of course, knowing anything at all about evolution, what Derb describes is exactly what one would expect to see after thousands of years of human migration and the separation of populations.

I occasionally have fun with my liberal friends who mock the religious right for not believing in evolution. I just point out that they are essentially as superstitious as the most devout person on the right in that they seem to believe that human evolution has had an impact on everything except the human mind. Only a supernatural agency could completely stall brain evolution of an evolving humanity whipped by the winds of selective pressures in different parts of the world.

Steve, feel free to censor this post if you feel like it. In fact, I probably want you to. Have you noticed that in this note Derb kind of given away partial identity of La Griffe du Lion? a friend of mine, an academic sociologist, calls it "the universal constant of American sociology". At least I think it was La Griffe du Lion who coined "fundamental constant of sociology".

On more than one occasion you indicated that you don't know La Griffe's identity. I don't believe you but in case I am wrong, there is a hint for you :-)

Another thing from the note: Group differences are statistical truths ... They tell you nothing about the person you just met.

Except that they do. They inform us of probabilities. Knowing probability of a trait is not nothing - it is actually very concrete knowledge, just a different kind of knowledge.

We already paid a huge tax on slavery, which resulted in the destruction of much of the South's economic capacity (cities, railroads, etc.) and the deaths of over 500,000 American men - 4% of the USA's male population at the time (and a much higher percent of the adult male population, of course).

The sad part is that if you talk to blacks they almost completely forget about that - the deaths, that is; they certainly remember the slavery part. For them the civil rights movement started with Martin Luther King.

We will continue paying the slavery tax until whites wisen up and start pointing out that American blacks, if they have it so tough, are perfectly free to leave. With the possible exception of teeny-tiny Barbados, there is not a single black-majority country - legacy of slavery or no; legacy of Jim Crow or no - to which they would go. Even in the United States much of the movement of blacks is away from black-dominated areas to white-dominated ones.

The economic disparity between whites in the USA and whites in other white-majority countries is a matter of percentages: most whites do 20-50% better, at most, than they would in their ancestral homeland. For blacks, however, the disparity is a matter of multiples - they do 20-100 times better here than they do there.

We used to be able to openly discuss that, of course, in "polite" society. Just because we can't do so now doesn't mean we'll never be able to do so again. Brave men like John Derbyshire (and you) might slowly be making that possible. Thank you.

Wow. I hope Derbyshire doesn't work at a university. Or for the government. If he does they will probably have him up before some tribunal for harassment or something. I am much too wimpy to say this stuff out loud in the face-to-face world. It is a wonder they didn't heckle him.

"...we will pay the Slavery Tax forever, and that we can, more or less, afford it. What we can't afford is expanding disparate impact and other forms of racial preference to immigrant ethnic groups."

But every quota expansion, every manifestation of disparate impact nonsense, every advantage and outright priviledge extended to 'people of color' and to women derives from our willingness to acquiesce to those damnable Slavery Taxes.

I am a tenured college professor at a little liberal arts college in California. I am also a very low-profile conservative - it's just not worth the hassle of arguing with ideologues. But holy shit, The Derb is my new hero! The faculty here would have keeled over or rioted. WOW!

If we ever do end up paying reparations for slavery, you know damn well even that will eventually end up as an entitlement for all non-whites, no matter when they got here. Because the rational will inevitably shift from "reparations for past wrongs" to "leveling the playing field."

My considered judgment is that we will pay the Slavery Tax forever, and that we can, more or less, afford it.

It's more like a "Bribe the Blacks not to Riot Tax", isn't it?

What we can't afford is expanding disparate impact and other forms of racial preference to immigrant ethnic groups.

But we already do this.

A case can be made that "affirmative action for all" would make since at elite colleges and universities

Since when?

For blacks, however, the disparity is a matter of multiples - they do 20-100 times better here than they do there.

Excellent point. My one political aim is to see an open and honest discussion of diversity and who the real beneficiaries of multiculturalism are. After that we'll see how much longer the "Slavery Tax" lasts.

"Good speech but did Derby have to goo goo wussy with the last remark about 'white man can't dance' bullshit?"

"Except that they do. They inform us of probabilities. Knowing probability of a trait is not nothing - it is actually very concrete knowledge, just a different kind of knowledge."

I had a popular psych professor when I was in school in the mid-90s who spent an entire class railing against the Bell Curve because, he assumed, it made us all apply what we knew about intelligence in groups to individuals. Lots of students, I am sure, nodded their heads that day. How could we, smart, young vibrant minds, stereotype the person sitting next to us, based on what some tests said?

What Derb did, and what the commenters above missed, is that Derb was/is trying to "sell" HBD to an audience that is not necessarily wanting to buy it - especially if it's packaged in the same "bell curve" format (notice Derb never used the term "bell curve" either. sadly, pre-conceived notions have ruined that phrase and all it implies for use at places like UPenn). What this movement needs is the folks who can pick up the ideology and "package" it for those who aren't aware of it and its implications. Who is the Kemp/Reagan to our Wanniski/Laffer? Steve's next post makes me think that might never happen. Which conservative populist/politician would be willing to touch the issue and bring it forth for use in applying its tenets across society?

Ideas are great. The facts are in, HBD is "the right side" as the gamblers say. But we need to find a way to "Cross the chasm" as Geoffrey Miller once wrote about software development. Who takes this winning idea from the "early adopters" to the mainstream? Who has almost nothing left to lose?

i'm not confident the US can afford even the "slavery tax" for more than a few decades, if it continues to result in people like barack obama becoming elected to the highest offices of the land.

how many unqualified africans can permanently damage US politics before the functioning of the nation is critically compromised? under a concerted effort by them, it really would not take that many. 20 years worth of barack obama style politics and the US is probably mortally crippled against international competition in almost every key field.

Yes Steve, but as you often point out, Hispanics are simply too boring to think about. I've seen this in action - in a right-wing blog I often post on, any post related to Hispanics is routinely ignored, unless it is directly about border control/expelling illegals. The American ignorance of Hispanic culture may one day be our undoing.

Luke Lea said: "...there is something to be said, in a representative democracy, for having in this pool[of tomorrow's leaders of our nation] reflect the ethnic and geographical diversity of the country as a whole."

There's something to be said, in a representative democracy, for the ethnic and racial homogeneity which promote social engagement and solidarity and national unity.

Far better to have leaders of a representative democracy leading their country's people than to have them leading various peoples co-existing in the same country. The latter tends to devolve into an ethnically and racially based spoils system in a country whose society is disengaged and not particularly civil.

There's a reason Putnam, good liberal that he is, hemmed and hawed before publishing the results of his studies on the social benefits of diversity.

"The sad part is that if you talk to blacks they almost completely forget about that - the deaths, that is; they certainly remember the slavery part. For them the civil rights movement started with Martin Luther King."

So true. I remember a black guy calling in to CSPAN to gripe about our nation-building adventures in Afghanistan. He said, "Nobody ever fought a war to free black people! We rose up and did it ourselves!" Of course, nobody corrected him.

Thanks for posting that, Steve, and thanks to commenters for their interest.

In response to Flawed ("I desperately want to know how that was received and if he's getting any hate mail over it!"):

I'd describe the overall response as one of bafflement. Most of those in the audience were 20-something students. As Prof. Wax said to meafterwards: "They never heard anything like that before." Of course they didn't. Where would they have heard it?

No, no hate mail at all so far.

I'd guess the modal reaction in the U. Penn. audience was: "Professor Wax is off her meds again … Cool oppression stories fromthat Baltimore guy … Darity lost me with all those studies he was citing … But what the heck was that weird Englishman taking about? Wheredo they get characters like that? … Whoa, gotta go, that cute first-year chick's texting me …"

The entire sum of negative reactions, other than from that "moderator," was a young woman in the audience who demanded to know thesources for my remarks (I recommended Michael Levin's Why RaceMatters), and a much older guy — fifty- orsixty-something, — also in the audience, who scolded me afterwards,telling me that my ideas were "old" and my remarks "hurtful." See, older people have heard it before, and they connectrace realism with the insults & indignities of the Jim Crow period. It's natural enough, and hard to blame them. I don't myself think there isthe faintest possibility of Jim Crow coming back; but I don't know how I could prove that to a black guy of his generation.

Other than that, people were pretty friendly, or else just ignored me in a way not (so far as I could tell) meant to be offensive. To anyoneinvited into a similar venue, I'd say just be frank, honest, and polite. Keep the science & math basic, try to hook it to their own experiences (as I didwith the LSAT), and get in a plea to good old American individualism. Nobody will set you on fire.

Prof.Wax's book is worth reading. It's not race realist — she's a university professor, for crying out loud — but it's frank & well-argued, and goes boldly right up to the edge of the precipice in a few places.

For blacks, however, the disparity is a matter of multiples - they do 20-100 times better here than they do there.

For what it's worth, my research backs that up. A couple years ago I tried to G**gle up the numbers so I could make this comparison. I could find very little in the way of decent figures, but I used a proxy (I forget what, something like average income) and came up with something like 40x.

" A case can be made that "affirmative action for all" would make s(ens)e at elite colleges and universities (outside the hard sciences, which are another matter). This is the pool from which tomorrow's leaders of our nation will be chosen."

Right there-irrespective of everything else-is a big part of the problem. We'd be far better off to pick our leaders from schools like Purdue, U Ky, KU, Georgia tech, et al. They may be a little lower in IQ (though still over that of the general population) but also less ambitious, less obsessed with personal gain. Less neurotic. Generally less inclined to go along with policies abusive to the general welfare? Well, not likely any worse.

I have a strict rule: I never vote for Ivy Leaguers for any elective offfice.

Derb did get treated badly by the moderator, but everyone else was civil. One old professor criticized his ideas as "old" and "hurtful", but Derb pointed out that this criticism did not bother him because neither of those adjectives has any bearing on whether the ideas are true.

John Derbyshire did a wonderful job, and has more courage than I suspect that I would have in a similar situation.

Regarding how to make HBD palatable, I think Derb's references to white people being unable to dance and blacks excelling in sports make for a good start. There are areas where blacks do outstrip whites, and calling attention to these strengths is not only fair, but it will also make the more bitter truths of HBD easier to swallow. What other areas do blacks excel in that we could point to? Clearly, they dominate pop culture. How does that translate into their cognitive profile?

It couldn't hurt for a lot of us to put ourselves in the shoes of the average black person. Would we like hearing that our group was a standard deviation below the majority's average in regard to intelligence? Of course not. I know this isn't the same thing because Jews are themselves a minority and have never oppressed white gentiles (anti-Semitic conspiracy theories aside), but it irks me sometimes that Ashkenazi Jews score so much higher on tests of cognitive ability than gentile whites. Actually, I never thought much about it until I went to law school and noticed that the top three students in the class were Jews. (We have maybe five or six Jews in my class total - it's the smallest of the top 30 schools.) Even now, I certainly don't lose any sleep over the fact, but once in a while I find myself bitching about how smart Jews are to my classmates (mostly when discussing the curve). Yet when it comes down to it, as an Italian-American, I would never trade the artistic achievements of my people for the intellectual accomplishments of the Ashkenazi.

Anyway, my point is that intelligence is important sociologically, but on an individual level, there are other things people take pride in. We should keep this in mind.

I'm not American, but isn't there a case for making the slavery tax explicit?

Blacks make something like 60% of white incomes, on average. Suppose, in the absence of affirmative action, that falls to 40%. Just levy a tax. If blacks are about 12% of the American population, a 7% income tax (or some other tax at a suitable rate) could subsidize black incomes up to the white average. For every dollar an African American earned (legally, from market income), the government would kick in a $1.50. Income gap gone. (For decency's sake, you'd probably have a cap somewhere, to avoid paying decimillions to NBA stars.)

No one would like paying an extra 7% tax, but the economy would stand it, and everyone would gain from the efficiencies of an non-race-regulated society. Moreover, black earned income would quickly rise, given the incentive structure, automatically reducing the slavery tax in years to come.

John Derbyshire is somewhat disingenuous in his choice of analogy. Instead of talking about his lack of dancing ability, he should have talked about his lack of high end mathematical ability, something he has certainly rued before in The Corner. But perhaps that would have been too difficult to casually talk about in front of an audience.

Americans can afford a slavery tax, in terms of money. But here is how it necessairly works morally, as Thomas Sowell pointed out: If disparate impact is not the norm, and jobs and achievement are normaily distributed among races in accordance with their representation in the population, there is only one explination why certain racial groups are under represented in desired professions - the injustice of the society and in particular the racism and power of the majority. If the society is willing to brand a segment or race or group as unjust, racist, and taking unfair advantage, that group is destined for punishment. The small fiction that all races should share equal achievement in all occupations and measures in a fair society, creates a serious villian to explain why reality does not meet the fiction. Violence against Chinese in Milasia and overachieveing minorities worldwide are testiment to this cruel equation.

My considered judgment is that we will pay the Slavery Tax forever, and that we can, more or less, afford it.

I think you're being awfully optimistic. The US is a Ponzi scheme that is running out of suckers, all the more so when you tell whites they just need to accept their status as tax fodder for permanently aggrieved and permanently unassimilable minorities.

Citing new studies of Epigenetics and quantum physics and their elucidation of exterior factors resulting in cellular level changes, and the physical manifestation of collective though, your points may be on the precipice of obsolescence at this time, but good job nonetheless. The others here could learn much from you.

PS: you may have not have become a championship level ballroom dancer, but you were probably much closer to a good athlete who had never taken a lesson; and how do you you know that your own negative attitude did not doom you to being a bad dancer?

Certainly there is something to be said for God-given attributes and weaknesses, but how does this explain the measured and scientifically proven placebo effect?

Anon said:Kudos to John Derbyshire for delivering a very difficult speech to that particular audience. Very brave effort to speak the truth about the existence of HBD.

Derbyshire has pointed out statistical group differences that have been known for a long time, and quite rightly questions AA. But as Thomas Sowell (1981, 1983, 2004) shows, "intractable" gaps between and within racial/ethnic groups are nothing new, or surprising. A number of WHITE ethnic groups showed similar patterns both between them (white Irish and Italians for example versus superior Jews and Asians) or within them (Northern Italians vs Southern Italians). Both Flynn and Sowell show significant changes over several years in many minority groups, including Jews who scored dismally on intelligence tests during WWI.

Reputedly "intractable" gaps may not necessarily be so, and they may not mean much given the gaps that exist between all groups at some level. The white Irish for example have long lagged behind other white ethnic groups who did not have the advantages of speaking English or the political organization that the Irish did. But they seem prosperous enough, despite superior Jewish performance. Blacks can do likewise over time, as can resentful southern whites or low income whites who show similar gaps in a number of areas compared to more advanced northern whites- including higher levels of illegitimacy, violence and poorer academic performance and acculturation (Sowell - Black Rednecks, White Liberals).

Some may well conclude that based on the gap Derbyshire points out that Affirmative Action should go. Fair enough. It is a flawed policy, and there have been plenty of black critics of "affirmative action." But others argue also for a detailed dialog about low performing whites, and getting rid of affirmative action for its main beneficiaries- white women- who are well covered by the "goals and timetables" policies of federal, state and local regimes. Let's also get rid of "informal" affirmative action for white people, namely the practice of limiting the number of superior Asians admitted to universities and other advancement opportunities, as documented not only by Sowell but by US government filings against various universities.

Pesud says:We already paid a huge tax on slavery, which resulted in the destruction of much of the South's economic capacity (cities, railroads, etc.) and the deaths of over 500,000 American men - 4% of the USA's male population at the time (and a much higher percent of the adult male population, of course). The sad part is that if you talk to blacks they almost completely forget about that - the deaths, that is; they certainly remember the slavery part. For them the civil rights movement started with Martin Luther King.

The actually loss to America's population was about 2%, a loss that could have been avoided if the white south did not insist on holding on to their primary "state's right"- slavery... The British by contrast not only abolished slavery relatively peacefully without such a horrendous war but also compensated most slave owners (Rothschild 2004). The "slave tax" of the Civil War in that respect was entirely self-inflicted. And you haven't the slightest clue about "blacks." What historically informed black has forgotten about the costs of the Civil War? It is plainly pointed out in most textbooks and histories. And for "blacks" the Civil Rights movement did NOT begin with Martin Luther King. Ever heard of Frederick Douglas for example or the Niagara Movement? You are sadly misinformed.

We will continue paying the slavery tax until whites wisen up and start pointing out that American blacks, if they have it so tough, are perfectly free to leave.

The same could be said of whites who are reputedly laboring under all this "oppression" in the United States. They are free to pack up and move to "purer" white countries as well.

Anon saidPossibly less well known is that Cavalli-Sforza said in his 'History and Geography of Human Genes' that all of humanity can be divided into two major groups: Sub-Saharan Africans on the one hand and everyone else on the other.

Well.. I challenge you to produce an actual quote where he said this, including the context if any. And the same claim you make can be said of other groups, including Australians or Europeans. All you have to do is label your categories and issue a statement. Cavalli-Sforza is hardly the last word on anything. Some of his claims as well as his methodology has been thoroughly criticized and debunked. For example one key reference bolstering his claims on Africa is an obsolete 1964 Encyclopedia Britannica reference on Ethiopians.

"African ethnic units are not bounded, homogeneous monoliths either frozen in place since before a.d. 1492 or caromming around the continent like culture-bearing billiard balls. They are dynamic entities, manipulated in response to changes in the natural and social environment, and their composition can change very quickly.."

"In part because of this lack of chronological control, the procedures used by Cavalli-Sforza et al. to associate genetic patterning with cultural events in the past are quite unsystematic, involving attempts to fit second- hand knowledge of archaeological, ethnographic, and linguistic reconstructions into a Procrustean bed of genetic patterning. Clark’s (1998) description of the "ransacking” of European genetic data for meaning applies equally well in the African case."

"Indeed, historical data might lead us to expect such genetic results. This possibility seems to be comprehensively edited out of The History and Geography of Human Genes, presumably because European settlement in southern Africa took place after a.d. 1492. This claimed association of Khoisan people with “Caucasoids” is quoted in more recent works on genetics and history in Africa, among them the work by Passarino et al. (1998) on Ethiopian populations. This latter paper exhibits the same reliance upon inappropriate sources as does Cavalli-Sforza et al., with for example use of a 1964 Encyclopedia Britannica article as a primary reference on the prehistory of Ethiopia."

(--Scott MacEachern, Genes, Tribes, and African History. Current Anthropology Volume 41, Number 3, June 2000 )

Another problem of Cavalli-Sforza's work is selective sampling. In several studies for instance he samples the far north of Egypt near the Mediterranean and uses that as "representative" of the entire population, excluding key historic areas of the south, from whence sprang the Egyptian dynasties. In other studies he manipulates the data to create preferred race categories, such as dropping Ethiopian Chadic and Omotic speakers out of sampling to create the impression that Ethiopians are white. The list of shenanigans is long. (See The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534–544) Interestingly he sees Europeans as a mixed race not the "pure" breed touted by some HDBers. (Cavalli-Sforza 2000).

Whiskey said:Look at Jessie James. Had his scandal happened ten years ago he would have been toast. He's now ... a mere minor tabloid fodder. He will probably get another reality show any week.

You are right about the resentment out there but I don't see the Jesse James thing. White Jesse got busted and is being raked over the coals in the tabloids with teary-eyed sympathy for Sandra, who knew the dude's rep and background before she took up with him. Cabuclasian Tiger got busted for bigger scale shennigans and is being relentlessly raked over the coals in the tabloids too in proportion. Looks like "equal opportunity" to me...

Anon said:But every quota expansion, every manifestation of disparate impact nonsense, every advantage and outright priviledge extended to 'people of color' and to women derives from our willingness to acquiesce to those damnable Slavery Taxes.

Actually it derives from the long decades of racism and unjust treatment inflicted on said people of color. The repercussions of slavery were many. Is "affirmative action" in the 20th/21st century a proper response to long-ago slavery? NO. But is said AA one of those flawed indirect legacies? yes- along with white homsexuals seeking to destroy the institution of marriage by wrapping themselves in the language and mantle of "civil rights." Unintended effects centuries later ... as white America has sown, thus has it reaped... Sailer is right, and to o point out the absurdities of that legacy. America will continue to pay its slavery tax in quite unexpected ways.

jody said...i'm not confident the US can afford even the "slavery tax" for more than a few decades, if it continues to result in people like barack obama becoming elected to the highest offices of the land.

Exactly how is Obama a result of the "slavery tax"? White people did not vote for Obama in any significant way out of 'white guilt" or "reparations." Give them more credit than that. They were (a) disatisified with white George Bush, (b) did not like white Hilary CLinton enough as an alternative and (c) wanted the liberal gravy chain of big government and big unionism to keep rolling, and saw Obama as a pliable implementer and more trendy face to put out front. Obama part of a "slavery tax"? Puhleese...

As for where you say: "how many unqualified africans can permanently damage US politics before the functioning of the nation is critically compromised? under a concerted effort by them?" Your supposedly more "qualified" white people have permanently damaged America a great deal. White Franklin Roosevelt and his "New Deal" for example did a lot of permanent damage to America, in terms of expanding government, taxation, union strengthening etc. And that's only "qualified" white Roosevelt. There are plenty of "qualified" white "role models" in terms of damaging America. It remains to be seen if Obama can top them, and it is scarcely credible that white Hilary Clinton will be or would have been any different. In fact Obama's incompetence and/or weakness may be a blessing some conservatives argue. If the more politically skillful and ruthless white Hilary were in power things might be a lot worse.

Anon said:Blacks make something like 60% of white incomes, on average. Suppose, in the absence of affirmative action, that falls to 40%. Just levy a tax. If blacks are about 12% of the American population, a 7% income tax could subsidize black incomes up to the white average. For every dollar an African American earned the government would kick in a $1.50...black earned income would quickly rise, given the incentive structure, automatically reducing the slavery tax in years to come.."

lol.. But your modest proposal assumes that the extra 20% of black income is due to "affirmativ action." This is inaccurate as Sowell conclusively shows. However your model has merit in that it avoids payoffs to high income blacks, and high IQ blacks. Still it discriminates against tens of millions of low IQ white people. who have to pay, while higher income whites get an easier ride. Low IQ whites also should be subsidized. In this way, higher IQ people, like Jews, Asians and some northern European whites, and whites whose incomes are already above the national average (like white homosexuals), would pay a little more, but the model would be "race neutral" and since it included low IQ white people, it would be more palatable to the general white electorate. Party on!

My apologies, but this entire pursuit of HBD is nonsense, no matter how true. The problem facing this society is that the government seeks to turn middle and working class white people into second-class citizens. That agenda is not going to change even if HBD is acknowledged.

What is needed is a policy agenda to prevent exactly that from happening, not some academic tangent on racial differences. We need politicians who will oppose affirmative action, immigration, H1-B, offshore outsourcing, and a whole host of other policies because they are bad for the working and middle class white people who are most hurt by these policies.

Furthermore, the way to counter any liberal criticism of such a white-centered policy is to simply point out that every white liberal is basically a hypocrite. White liberals structure their lives so they never need to bear the costs of their policies.

The Pelosis, Reids, Clintons, Edwards, and other Democrat scum don't suffer from diversity. And until they do, I don't believe average white America should either.

"...Finally, can see that a Mexican walking across the border is instantly eligible for all sorts of preferences, and indeed other non-Whites such as Asians (Goodwin Liu coming to mind) want this preferential treatment as well...."

"other non-Whites such as Asians" are already instantly eligible for all sorts of preferences, and, indeed, are the biggest per capita recipients of ethnic preferences, which is obvious if you properly compare the value of college admissions AA (low)to government and corporate contract and employment AA (high) and you look up the amount of each that is actually happening. Asians ('dot' Indians and 'Oriental' Asians) receive much more in set-aside and price differential $Billions than either latinos or blacks, yet there population numbers are much lower, and the recipients are more likely to be immigrants.

John Derbyshire wrote:** Within this range, by the way, from the 2007-2008 figures already noted out of the LSAC database, and assuming a Gaussian-normal distribution, one would expect to find about 3,281 Caucasian test-takers and about 24 African American ones, a white-black ratio of 137 to 1.

*three reasonable qualifications*

then the current 565-student black-plus-white component of the total enrollment at U. Penn law school would split as 561 white, 4 black on a strictly LSAT basis.

The actual split is 508 white, 57 black.

Wake Forest University has succeeded in gaining traction in the 'Diversity Movement'. If you recall Wake Forest rethought its admissions policy in 2008 and decided to drop its SAT requirement to fling its doors open to the less qualified. And what a resounding success it has been. This year in the School of Business underrepresented minorities make up 44 percent of the entering class, up from 18 percent a year ago.

“We seek students who are intellectually curious and hard-working. We also seek passionate learners who share a commitment to integrity, work ethic, and open-mindedness. None of those things shows up on the SAT.”

The liberal ideologues, sociologists, and self appointed Demon Deacons of political correctness have seized control of the admissions office and erroneously think that while the SAT isn't a reliable predictor of academic performance, it is a reliable indicator of family income, but the truth is; SAT scores are a cause of SES and not a consequence of it. My advise to capable Asian and white students attending is to flee Wake Forest for opportunities elsewhere.

Blacks make something like 60% of white incomes, on average. Suppose, in the absence of affirmative action, that falls to 40%. Just levy a tax...[and] subsidize black incomes up to the white average.

What would you do about the whites earning less than the white average? Obviously you can't raise everyone up to the white average without complete socialism.

And...what do you do about black immigrants? Such a program would a huge Afromagnet.

And...what do you do about people who lie on their tax returns, claiming to be black? Would the IRS have the manpower to look through every single falsely filed claim? Because the amount of civil disobedience on that one would be HUGE.

there is only one explanation why certain racial groups are under represented in desired professions - the injustice of the society and in particular the racism and power of the majority.

In other words, racism and scapegoating. Scapegoating whites for the poverty of blacks. Attaching a behaviorial trait ("racism") to large numbers of a group simply because of their race.

Flynn and Sowell show significant changes over several years in many minority groups, including Jews who scored dismally on intelligence tests during WWI.

Yeah, those tests were conducted on Jewish people who were believed to be retarded and, surprise!, they showed that they were.

The actually loss to America's population was about 2%, a loss that could have been avoided if the white south did not insist on holding on to their primary "state's right"- slavery

I said 4% of American men. If you were a conscription age man in 1860s America which number was more relevant (and significant) - the 4% or the 2%? Moreover, 4% is still too low, as it includes men too old and boys too young to serve.

That the South "insisted" on its right to slavery is irrelevant, also. The Union did not have to fight the war; did not have to send so many innocent men to their deaths in a war quite clearly about slavery, whatever Lincoln claimed (you ever heard of "spin"?)

The point is that those men died for a cause - to free the slaves. The point is that war was the only way that freeing the slaves was going to happen, period.

Hell, even most Confederate soldiers were innocent in the sense of not actually owning any slaves.

The British by contrast not only abolished slavery relatively peacefully without such a horrendous war but also compensated most slave owners

The vast majority of the British Empire did not rely on enslaved labor - Australia, Canada, India and, of course, Britain itself. Hell, if the British Empire hadn't lost the 13 colonies in the 1780s it might not have abolished slavery at all.

The same could be said of whites who are reputedly laboring under all this "oppression" in the United States. They are free to pack up and move to "purer" white countries as well.

Be careful what you wish for.

Even so, the number of pure white countries shrnks by the minute. The number of solidly black-majority countries stays pretty much fixed.

Exactly how is Obama a result of the "slavery tax"? White people did not vote for Obama in any significant way out of 'white guilt" or "reparations."

Do you actually know any whites who voted for Obama? I know quite a few, and I can categorically state that a significant number of them saw his race as an important factor in their support. A white man or woman with his (lack of) qualifications and his overt radicalism would not have been nominated or elected.

The analysis in your last paragraph is spot on. The solution to our social and racial problems is to find a race neutral method of income redistribution. I would suggest a progressive income tax which would be negative for those in the lowest tax brackets i.e. for those working at minimum wage jobs. This would disproportionately help blacks only to the extent that they are overrepresented among the working poor. To avoid subsidizing dysfunctional behavior, the wage subsidy would be available only to those who work. If you are not paying into your social security account, you are ineligible for the wage subsidy.

At present, any talk of income redistribution is anathema to the white working class because they see correctly that what is meant is a tax on being white. A race neutral method of redistribution would overcome this objection. Once enacted, a negative income tax would be very popular with ordinary African Americans. For every college professor who is black there are a thousand who work at menial jobs. Such a benefit would go a long way toward reconciling them to the loss of special privileges like affirmative action (which benefit only the mulatto elite) as well as the loss of other wealth transfers such as welfare, food stamps and section 8 housing vouchers.

I believe that it would also reduce the crime rate enormously. Most liberals underestimate the moral hazard of welfare because they cannot imagine themselves settling for the standard of living which the safety net provides to our underclass. They fail to realize that for many of the underclass, poverty and idleness are all that they have ever known. We are in effect subsidizing criminal behavior by providing a basic subsistence living to the least responsible members of society while at the same time providing them with free time to pursue the more varied and exciting careers that a life of petty crime affords them.

"But your modest proposal assumes that the extra 20% of black income is due to "affirmativ action." This is inaccurate as Sowell conclusively shows."

Hey, it's a thought experiment!

My 20% is pure assumption. What is Sowell's figure? Higher or lower? If it's lower, the slavery tax can come in at a lower rate.

Your point about fairness to low-IQ non-blacks is reasonable, but remember, I'm assuming that a slavery "tax" currently exists in the form of affirmative-action-driven economic distortion. My idea is to make it explicit: fiscal not regulatory.

A general regime of subsidies for the disadvantaged is a somewhat different topic.

"What would you do about the whites earning less than the white average? Obviously you can't raise everyone up to the white average without complete socialism."

First, Too Tall was right in calling this my "modest proposal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal), so don't take it too seriously.

Anyway, it's not about levelling incomes. It wouldn't bring every black up to the white average. More likely, it would bring a black at the 10th percentile for blacks up to the 10th percentile for whites, and so on. (That's not exactly my proposed mechanism, but it's more or less what the result would be.)

So if you applied the same system to whites, it would have no effect, since a white at the 10th percentile is already at the white 10th percentile.

"And...what do you do about black immigrants? Such a program would a huge Afromagnet."

It would have to be strictly for descendants of American slaves.

"And...what do you do about people who lie on their tax returns, claiming to be black? Would the IRS have the manpower to look through every single falsely filed claim? Because the amount of civil disobedience on that one would be HUGE."

People would have to document their black ancestry, not necessarily to a genealogical certainty, but to a reasonable standard. Once there's a registry of "status" African Americans (like Canada's status Indians), eligibility follows by descent. You'd have rules about fractional status, with some kind of cut-off (say, less than 50% and you're considered non-black).

I would like to echo the congratulations to Derbyshire for the clarity of his remarks and the difficulty of their context.

As for strategies to explain HBD to skeptical audiences, I have had success with the following line of argument.

1. Basic population genetics: reproductively isolated populations will develop different ratios of alleles.

2. The circumstances in which early H. sapiens lived led to different selective pressures that we can easily see in different physiological traits. Malaria resistance in Africans and SE Asians, for example.

3. The development of civilization has clearly contributed additional selective pressures to some populations. Lactose-tolerance in Northern Europeans (contrast with S. Europeans and elsewhere).

4. Now introduce alcoholism. Contrast Northern and Southern Europeans, relate it to history of alcohol synthesis in those populations. Mention alcoholism among indigenous populations. Compare to evolved resistance to the Old World diseases that decimated New World populations upon contact.

At this point, you've essentially walked the listener up to the point of acknowledging that some negative population stereotypes are factual statistical statements deriving from our evolutionary background. The lactose->alcoholism route I think is especially strong because it a) attacks a loosely-held superstition (that alcoholism among Native Americans and aboriginals is either a negative and false stereotype or a result of oppression) and b) is obviously rooted in our physiology and the selective processes that faced our ancestors.

5. Now go ahead and broach the issues of black underachievement, qualified by the elementary statistics involved: central tendency and variance, etc...

Just in my experience, I have converted several (albeit relatively free-thinking) young people to HBD with this reasoning. It can be explained in just a few minutes this way, and without arousing emotional responses. I write it up in case it brings success to anyone else.

As Prof. Wax said to meafterwards: "They never heard anything like that before." Of course they didn't. Where would they have heard it?

Interesting. Once upon a time the leftists made refutations hereditarian strawmen in almost every relevant textbook. I suppose mentioning that anyone ever held biology-compatible views is too offensive now. Biological no-nothings have gone rusty.

Truth said,

Citing new studies of Epigenetics and quantum physics and their elucidation of exterior factors resulting in cellular level changes, and the physical manifestation of collective though, your points may be on the precipice of obsolescence at this time, but good job nonetheless. The others here could learn much from you.

Lulz. That's pure babble. High-end babble. Solve a wave equation Truth. QM does not result in the physical manifestation of collective thought. WTF does that even mean? As for epigenetics, it's super important in determining whether a cell becomes a skin or bone cell, for eg. But whether blacks are black because of genetic differences or epigenetic differences?

If you disagree, lay out how epigenetic causes of racial differences differs in any functional way from the genetic causes that the epigenetic causes just happen to perfectly mimic.

The simple fact that left-wingers are desperate for a heredetary mechanism that works exactly like genetic inheritance is basically an admission that the heredetarian position is true.

People would have to document their black ancestry, not necessarily to a genealogical certainty, but to a reasonable standard. Once there's a registry of "status" African Americans (like Canada's status Indians), eligibility follows by descent. You'd have rules about fractional status, with some kind of cut-off (say, less than 50% and you're considered non-black)."

You see Rob, that is your entire problem. You guys are so desperate to lower your cartoon shotgun on me that you say "Oooh that Wascaly Wabbit I've got him now!" Without reading what I wrote.

If there is no physical manifestation of thought, how does one explain the placebo effect? (which I wrote at the end-part of my post that you did not read.)

If you are unaware of the placebo effect, let me explain it to you; people who think that they are receiving medicine heal faster from maladies than people who do not, even when the are not, and often times, faster than people who are actually receiving medicine. This is, as I earlier wrote, "measured and scientifically proven."

Are you telling me that the placebo effect does not exist? If it does exist, I would say that it quite obviously proves that one's thought process can effect CELLULAR LEVEL change, which is, epigenetics.

It isn't that complicated, Rob.

"But whether blacks are black because of genetic differences or epigenetic differences?"

I never wrote anything even approximating such refuse, but I'll grudgingly explain what I wrote, (which I THOUGHT was straightforward); If epigenetics does exist, then the cause for intelligence or lack thereof may be a matter of choices made AFTER BIRTH. Period, not that complex.

There is a really shitty movie in the video stores now called Men Who Stare at Goats. I read the book years ago, it was actually quite good; the upshot is that there are elite army "mental warriors" who "allegedly" have been observed killing goats simply by staring at them with bad intent.

How does this fit into your quaint, cute, rather adorable 1957 understanding of the nature - nurture argument?

Are you telling me that the placebo effect does not exist? If it does exist, I would say that it quite obviously proves that one's thought process can effect CELLULAR LEVEL change, which is, epigenetics.

Well there's a problem. You don't know what epigenetic means. Changes to DNA, and often chromatin in general, that do not change the genetic code and are heritable in a cell line (X-inactivation, methylation) are epigenetic.

An adrenaline rush from thinking about whatever is the mind affecting the body at the CELLULAR level. It is not "Epigenetic."

As for the value of the placebo effect, one can work this out by noting that religious people pray. They believe in the efficacy of prayer. Prayer is real old. Actual medicines are pretty new. Compared to medicine, prayer, and therefore the placebo effect, is so weak that it almost unnoticeable.

How does this [psychic supersoldiers who can kill goats by looking at them] fit into your quaint, cute, rather adorable 1957 understanding of the nature - nurture argument?

Well Truth, magic is pretend, so it fits my worldview as something that's imaginary. But I'm a pretty gullible guy. I'll believe anything with enough evidence. People can write books about things that are pretend, so a book does qualify as enough evidence.

The opportunity to hobknob with geniuses who know everything, like you two, is why I come to this site.

Guys on the 85 IQ level like me generally have to read a book, check it's sources and feedback before passing judgment on it.

Oh well, I guess I should have chosen different parents."

And what sources do you have for the car that runs on water - which you once claimed you believed in? Do you honestly believe that men were able to kill goats by psychokinetic means, because you read it in a book? You are a credulous fool.

The reaction in various liberal blogs to Derbyshire's speech is hilarious, except for the numerous thinly veiled death threats. In many European countries Derbyshire would probably now be facing a criminal prosecution, and lots of people would like nothing more than to introduce similar thought crime laws in America.

"And what sources do you have for the car that runs on water - which you once claimed you believed in? Do you honestly believe that men were able to kill goats by psychokinetic means, because you read it in a book? You are a credulous fool."

Well, it beats being an incredulous fool, doesn't it, Grasshopper?

Mr. Anon, I think that I have discovered your ultimate problem here, you really do not read well. Not once did I ever say that I ever believed in a car running on water, not once did I ever say that I believed in men killing goats with psychokenetic means.

What I did, in both cases, is to present the information to add to the conversation and for YOU to draw an opinion.

I am not a physicist so I am not qualified to comment on water-based combustion; and read my link above, did I ever say that I believed in it? No, I simply asked Anyonymous how it fit into his argument.

There are two reasons that I very rarely give my opinion here:

1) You are (mostly) too obtuse to understand it.

2) You are too arrogant to care about anything that doesn't come from your own mouth, or fingers on a keyboard.

My goal here is not to profess my opinion, only to help you come out of the habit of offering silly, illogical,, self-pitying, wimpy, uneducated, arrogant, ill-conceived, and totally useless "opinions" of your own.

If you want my OPINION about something you'll generally have to ask; And then, Grasshopper you will be ready to leave the Temple.

"My goal here is not to profess my opinion, only to help you come out of the habit of offering silly, illogical,, self-pitying, wimpy, uneducated, arrogant, ill-conceived, and totally useless "opinions" of your own."

A palpable untwoof. You really want to come across as smarter than Steve and those who comment on this blog ("The others here could learn much from you" is by turns self-aggrandizing and unintentionally funny), a goal you will never, ever even come close to reaching.

Mr. Anon, I think that I have discovered your ultimate problem here, you really do not read well. Not once did I ever say that I ever believed in a car running on water,......."

That's sophistry. You said, in response to an assertion that a car that runs on water is nonsense: "That's not what this guy thinks", and provided a link to some charlatan who tries to bilk people by selling them useless "conversion kits". A reasonable person would take that as an endorsement by you. What do I care what "This guy" thinks - why would I care anymore about that than what I care about what you think?

"....not once did I ever say that I believed in men killing goats with psychokenetic means.

What I did, in both cases, is to present the information to add to the conversation and for YOU to draw an opinion........and read my link above, did I ever say that I believed in it? No, I simply asked Anyonymous how it fit into his argument."

His argument had nothing to do with goats, as far as I remember, nor with men who stare at them and may or may not kill them. How does it "add to a conversation" to bring up irrelevant tangents that you yourself don't even believe to be true. Assuming you don't believe it to be true. If you do believe it, then you're back to simply being a credulous fool. And anyway, I don't need your instruction. You have nothing to add to any of the discussions here. Most people who post here would probably prefer either a.) that Steve ban you, which he won't do, because he's a fair-minded guy, or b.) that you just go away. You add nothing.

"I am not a physicist so I am not qualified to comment on water-based combustion;"

Most people aren't physicists, and yet they have an opinion. Ever boil water? Ever wonder why it doesn't burst into flames?

"If you want my OPINION about something you'll generally have to ask..."

Actually, I have, and you responded with your usual load of obfuscatory squid-ink. Very well, I will ask again. Do you, or do you not believe that a car can run on water? I.e., that chemical energy stored in the water can be liberated through combustion and converted into work?

That is English, right? Where is my endorsement of what he thinks. I placed the quote so that people who may have a background in advanced physics (as you claim to) will tell me exactly why it is right or wrong.

Do you get it now, finally? I read his opinion, than I asked for yours. When a smart man does not know something THAT IS HOW HE FUCKING LEARNS, BY GETTING BOTH SIDES OF THE FUCKING DISCUSSION!

You in turn responded with a treastie on the first law of thermodynamics, (if I remember correctly it was a long time ago) therefore I read up and now I know more than I did before. Point being, I do not jump to conclusions that someone is a nut, just because the majority believes it. At one time, Sport, the majority believed that the earth was flat.

"How does it "add to a conversation" to bring up irrelevant tangents that you yourself don't even believe to be true."

For the 277th freaking time, I DID NOT INDICATE MY PERSONAL OPINION. I DON'T KNOW. I do know that I believe in psychokinetic power, and the relevance of his point dealt with quantum physics and the ability to exert control over ones physical circumstances, mentally.

Anon, you think in an unbelievably linear fashion, it's almost as if you are riding a motorcycle on a country road, and you cannot see anything that is to the left, or the right of your lane. I'll tell you as a "friend" it really is doing you no favors in life.

"If you do believe it, then you're back to simply being a credulous fool."

What, exactly, is your proof that author Jon Ronson is a liar or a charlatan? The man has produced 16 BBC documentaries and written 5 books. Most importantly in terms of proof of competence, he's white.

And you've done what, exactly, in life?

"I don't need your instruction."

Fair enough, but please my friend, get it from someone else.

"Most people who post here would probably prefer either a.) that Steve ban you, which he won't do, because he's a fair-minded guy, or b.) that you just go away. You add nothing."

There you go, being omnipotent again, you're speaking for 213 people.

I wish I was as smart as you.

"Very well, I will ask again. Do you, or do you not believe that a car can run on water? I.e., that chemical energy stored in the water can be liberated through combustion and converted into work?"

I'm going to use a phrase here you are unfamiliar with and have never used in your life so you may have to look it up...

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.